Ilford FP4+ in HC110 tested. From way to contrasty to normal.

[reneboehmer]

So by chance, when testing my new sensitometer, I discovered that the datasheet dev. times of Ilford Fp4+ in Hc110 result in crazy contrasty negatives. This is most likely because Ilford doesn't really care about contrast and only wants to hit the Box speed. Well if anyone wants to develop FP4 in HC110 with decent results, here are my findings: Goolge Drive Link

The time Ilford recommends is 9 min, ISO 125 in 1+31, this creates a curve with a steepness of about 1.3, which is too steep for me . Following my tests, a good development and sensitivity are about 5 min in 1+47 and approx. ISO 50. This will compress a ~1.5 SBR (Subject luminance range) to ~1.1 DR. (Density range). The Data in my PDF will provide SBR to DR tables for each curve.

I hope this might help some who are struggling with too contrasty FP4 in HC110.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

5 minutes is a little too short for comfort.
It's probably worthwhile switching to a less energetic developer. D-76 or ID11 diluted 1+1 works very well with FP4 Plus.

 

[koraks]

5 minutes is a little too short for comfort.

Tell that to the people who do ECN2 or C41 at a little over 3 minutes. Seriously, 5 minutes is A-OK. No need to worry.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Tell that to the people who do ECN2 or C41 at a little over 3 minutes. Seriously, 5 minutes is A-OK. No need to worry.

Maybe, but I much prefer a longer development time. Not too long to become tedious though.

 

[Vaughn]

Interesting. I use to use HC110, but I am aiming for a DR of 2.5 to 3.0. FP4+ seems to do a great job at that (I'm using Ilford Universal PQ Developer.)

For the records, what was your development regime (tank/reels, constant or intermittent agitation?)

Short development times? That would be nice!

Edit to add: I agree with Keith that keeping the dev. time to 5+ minutes, is a good idea. Depending on one's working conditions and practices, shorter times can lead to some issues. Fill and drain times become more significant, and so on.

This is a nice set of curves -- fun to examine.

 

[reneboehmer]

Interesting. I use to use HC110, but I am aiming for a DR of 2.5 to 3.0. FP4+ seems to do a great job at that (I'm using Ilford Universal PQ Developer.)

For the records, what was your development regime (tank/reels, constant or intermittent agitation?)

Short development times? That would be nice!

Edit to add: I agree with Keith that keeping the dev. time to 5+ minutes, is a good idea. Depending on one's working conditions and practices, shorter times can lead to some issues. Fill and drain times become more significant, and so on.

This is a nice set of curves -- fun to examine.

Are you using it for alternative printmaking? I use normal Ilford warm tone paper and a DR of 1.1 seems to be good. The development is described very precisely in the Google Drive link I provided in the text, but it's a two reel jobo tank, 4 vertical and horizontal, medium strength agitations over 10s and then every minute thereafter. Yes, I also agree that 5 min feels low, but I didn't want to make more tests on different dilutions at the time.

 

[reneboehmer]

Maybe, but I much prefer a longer development time. Not too long to become tedious though.

5 min is a bit low yes, I agree that it feels weird, but in practice I didn't see any issues on the test photos.

 

[reneboehmer]

Tell that to the people who do ECN2 or C41 at a little over 3 minutes. Seriously, 5 minutes is A-OK. No need to worry.

This might very well be true, my "real life" testing shows no unevenness out of the ordinary. Still 5-min feels a bit off.

 

[koraks]

This might very well be true, my "real life" testing shows no unevenness out of the ordinary. Still 5-min feels a bit off.

That's pretty much why we keep repeating things like these. "No, I've never ran into problems with it, but people say it's not a good idea, so let's better not." It's up there with the "acid fix kills pyro stain" and other popular myths.

 

[Craig]

Tell that to the people who do ECN2 or C41 at a little over 3 minutes. Seriously, 5 minutes is A-OK. No need to worry.

For years the Kodak datasheets have said:
"Tank development times shorter than 5 minutes may produce poor uniformity"

 

[koraks]

Hmmhmm, quite so. Now, with apologies for my part in this diversion, let's go back to @reneboehmer's nice set of charts and the interesting discrepancy between Ilford's recommended development times and his findings.

 

[Vaughn]

Are you using it for alternative printmaking? ...

Thanks for the reply...I had a senior moment and thought I had read all of the pdf, but did not get back to it and missed the last couple of pages.

Yes, alt processes, and using the processes with negs with a high DR...for Platinum/palladium printing without any contrast agent, for example, and a little higher DR for negatives destined for carbon printing.

For platinum printing, FP4+ with Ilford Universal PQ Developer was recommended by Terry King, who was a member of the Royal Photo Society who revisited the older photo processes for study. As well as expanding FP4+ nicely, he mentioned that the midtones also expanded well along with the highlights. The prints are good, and I do like the look of a well-expanded negative. I have also used straight Dektol.

Not issues silver printers usually deal with.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hmmhmm, quite so. Now, with apologies for my part in this diversion, let's go back to @reneboehmer's nice set of charts and the interesting discrepancy between Ilford's recommended development times and his findings.

Yes that has puzzled me, as well. Either Ilford has got its times appreciably wrong for HC110 and this dilution of it or the OP requires a negative that is under-developed by what Ilford regards as an OK neg and yet if the negative that is attached is an example of the much shorter time then to my untrained eye it looks OK for producing a good print

pentaxuser

 

[Nitroplait]

I think it is relevant to disclose exactly which developer we are talking about (and perhaps also which HC110 developer we assume Ilford is referring to).

OP writes: Developer: Kodak HC110 (New formula)

Which exact version is that?
To my knowledge we have the original viscous syrup, then came the newer more liquid version and then the latest version which seems closer to the original in viscosity than the previous more watery version. I do not know if the 3rd version is identical to the original version.

I am not aware that we have solid evidence that these 3 are identical nor if or how they may differ.

Of course, there is also the Adox HC110 version which claims to be identical to the original, but I assume that product isn't in play here.

 

[Nitroplait]

Oh, and I forgot to say @reneboehmer Thank so much for publishing those observations! I think it is very valuable for the community. I will keep the pdf in my archive.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

HC-110 is not the only developer for which Ilford's FP4+ times clash with others. Also happens with Rodinal.


FP4+ @ ISO 125 in Rodinal 1+25 (20ºC)

Afga suggested time: 6 minutes
Ilford suggested time: 9 minutes

FP4+ @ ISO 125 in Rodinal 1+50 (20ºC)

Afga suggested time: 13 minutes
Ilford suggested time: 15 minutes


I did not do any scientific testing, so it is possible that the Ilford times gets you closer to ISO 125 than the Agfa ones.

Agfa also recommends agitating every 30 seconds, while Ilford offers no agitation scheme for this developer, so hard to tell without serious testing what the contrast difference would be.

 

[reneboehmer]

Yes that has puzzled me, as well. Either Ilford has got its times appreciably wrong for HC110 and this dilution of it or the OP requires a negative that is under-developed by what Ilford regards as an OK neg and yet if the negative that is attached is an example of the much shorter time then to my untrained eye it looks OK for producing a good print

pentaxuser

This is a screenshot from the ISO:6 for the determination of film speed. My understanding is that not only the speed point must be met, but also the general curve steepness. My assumption would be that Ilford, in their data sheet , does not care about curve form, but only about point m (speed point). This is only an assumption though and might very well be a misunderstanding of the matter on my side.

 

[reneboehmer]

I think it is relevant to disclose exactly which developer we are talking about (and perhaps also which HC110 developer we assume Ilford is referring to).

OP writes: Developer: Kodak HC110 (New formula)

Which exact version is that?
To my knowledge we have the original viscous syrup, then came the newer more liquid version and then the latest version which seems closer to the original in viscosity than the previous more watery version. I do not know if the 3rd version is identical to the original version.

I am not aware that we have solid evidence that these 3 are identical nor if or how they may differ.

Of course, there is also the Adox HC110 version which claims to be identical to the original, but I assume that product isn't in play here.

I used: CAT 105 8692
I have heard that the developing activity of all different HC110 variants is the same. I've just assumed this to be true.

 

[aconbere]

HC-110 is not the only developer for which Ilford's FP4+ times clash with others. Also happens with Rodinal.


FP4+ @ ISO 125 in Rodinal 1+25 (20ºC)

Afga suggested time: 6 minutes
Ilford suggested time: 9 minutes

FP4+ @ ISO 125 in Rodinal 1+50 (20ºC)

Afga suggested time: 13 minutes
Ilford suggested time: 15 minutes


I did not do any scientific testing, so it is possible that the Ilford times gets you closer to ISO 125 than the Agfa ones.

Agfa also recommends agitating every 30 seconds, while Ilford offers no agitation scheme for this developer, so hard to tell without serious testing what the contrast difference would be.

These threads have been super validating because I have developed FP4 at home in two different developers: HC-110 (1+31 and 1+63) and Rodinal (1:50) and in both cases my film has come out over developed by a substantial margin.

With Rodinal I switched to HC-110 and with HC-110 I’ve continued to work at it and my personal times are now about 50% of ilford recommended times for 1+31 and 1+63.

This is all making me think that perhaps it wasn’t ME who was crazy

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just dilute the HC-110 a little more if you want longer dev times. It's remarkably flexible in that respect. But I strongly prefer PMK pyro for FP4 anyway.

Ilford's spec sheet curves are truncated, and printed awfully small. They give a clue; but it's better to plot your own.

 

[john_s]

An old site, but maybe still relevant:

Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

He shows HC-110 producing an upswept curve compared to Xtol which eases off at the high end.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's slight curve sag or upsweep is relative to Tmax normally developed in HC110, not FP4. I can confirm that.